Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1887-02-17
POLICE APP0INTNENTs.
lp,porsawt Questions Decided By she
Attorney for the Dtssrics.

RESTRICTIONS As 70 APPOINTMENTS HELD 10 N 70
LONGER IN FoRcE-THE ARMY AND NAVY CLAUSE
DEAD LErrER-sS INTERESTING DECISION GROWING
OUT or THE ARNOLD CASE.
Mr.. II. T. Davis. assistant attorney OF the DIS
trict, to-day rendered an opinion 20 the commise
sioners upon an application made by The kvEs-
ING STAR Company 20 have q commission Is .
special policeman issued 70 ex-Police Lieut. II. "A.
Arnold, who was brought before the Commission
ers for trial On charges preferred by g. II. Walker
late major OF police, and dismissed nom the force
The question In the case was whether the Commits
sioners had authority 20 issue q commission ~
special policeman 10 a dismissed officer, but tho
opinion covers some very Interesting poants
touching the District Commissioners power
OF appointment Mr. Davis holds that II the pro
vision OF the act OF August q, 1881, creating the
Metropolitan police force, which forbids the re-
ocers IS sti n force an of"sr dismissed for
cause may not be reappointed either general
or special onicer. MI: Davis refers 20 the act OF
government for the District, which empowered
the Commissioners TO "abolsh any ONCE, 20 con-
OF employees, remove from ONCE, ana to MAKE sp-
pointments 20 any Office under them authorized
oy Jaw In assuming 1ne pomeIs 2t tne old hoard
view In the Ecklon case that the Commissioners
received those powers without other Limitation OF
1This language" says Mr. Davis, referring TO
the court decision especially when read In the
light OF reasoning leading 60 It. Is broad enough 10
cover all questions that may arise as 20 the ap-
pointment and removal OF members OF the police
force, and practically leaves the Commissioners
wholly untrammeled I'm that regard. IL in effect
declares that all restrictions such appoint
ments and removal are destroyed even the restrfc-
ton OF appointment 20 the force 10 those who can
read and write the English language, are citizens
OF the United States, have not been Indicted and
convicted OF crime, and who have been honoraby
discharged from the army or navy OF the United
States Sec. Bob. Whether the court intended its
declaration 10 bear this sweeping and far-reach-
ing Interpretation can only be determined Itself on
proper occasion; but there can be no doubt that
as II stands that Is what Il means; that the act or
1878 does away with 'an impediments" OF pro.
power over the whole subject OF oifices
Plainly the effect OF this Is 20 declare that the
Commissioners do not rest under the limitations
and restrictions OF the act OF 1851 TO either APP
and TO leave them wholly free TO appoint or ne.
move In their discretion In this position IS
not correct Mr. Davis Is OF the opinion, TO the
Arnold case, that he was not dismissed "upon
written charges preferred against him, as the
Judgment OF the Commissioners was that the tes-
umony taken In the case Is not sufficient TO sus-
tain fully the technical charge or the specification
hereunder" This amounts TO q technical
quittal OF Mr.. Arnold on the charges ON
which he was tried; ana his dismissal rests
for its validity on the very freedom OF
the Commissioners from Limitation and restriction
ad1udged IN the case OF Ecklon. In this view, Mr..
Arnod's case presents itself as one OF dismissal
under such circumstances that the disQualirca-
aspect OF the case presented Mr. Davis says,
there Is no impeachment in the way OF commission
ing Arnold as requested. The opinion IL regarded
at the District building as OF great importance,
ing the appointment or honorably DISCHARGED sol.
dierS or sailors Is no longer In force.